Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy et al., US 2018/0002598 in view of Chowdhury et al., US 2017/0162762 in further view of Deram et al., (Supplemental lighting Orientation and Red-to-blue Ratio of Light-emitting Diodes for Greenhouse Tomato Production, (HortScience 49(4):448-452, 2014).
Regarding claim 1, Murphy discloses (figs. 1-2 and related text also refer to the abstract) an LED lighting apparatus (10) comprising: an enclosure (18) defining a cavity (inside 18) within the enclosure, the cavity comprising a depth dimension (fig. 1) ; at least one blue light emitting LED chip (12, [0041]); a layer comprising a blend of an encapsulant material (20) and phosphor composition (22), the layer overlaying the at least one blue light emitting LED chip (12) and disposed within the cavity (figs. 1-2); the phosphor composition comprising a yellow-green phosphor [0001] and a Mn4+ doped complex fluoride phosphor [0050] of formula I (abstract),
Ax[MFy]: Mn4+ (I)
where A is Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, or a combination thereof; M is Si, Ge, Sn, Ti, Zr, Al, Ga, In, Sc, Hf, Y, La, Nb, Ta, Bi, Gd, or a combination thereof; x is the absolute value of the charge of the [MFy] ion; and y is 5, 6, or 7; wherein the Mn4+ doped complex fluoride phosphor of formula I comprises a d50 (median) particle size of from about 1 micrometers to about 10 micrometers [0040], and the LED lighting apparatus, when activated, emits visible light comprising a correlated color temperature (CCT) of from about 2500 K to about 3700 K ([0002], furthermore, since the material as the claimed material will the LED will emit the same CCT light). of a total phosphor in a combined mass of the total phosphor and the encapsulant material
Murphy does not explicitly disclose a phosphor loading level of a total phosphor in a combined mass of the encapsulant material and the total phosphor is at or below 50 weight percent in the combined mass of the encapsulant material and the total phosphor in the layer comprising the blend of the encapsulant material and the phosphor composition.
Chowdhury discloses (fig. 2, table 2, [0036] and related text, including claim 17) a phosphor loading level of a total phosphor in a combined mass of the encapsulant material and the total phosphor is at or below 50 weight percent in the combined mass of the encapsulant material and the total phosphor in the layer comprising the blend of the encapsulant material and the phosphor composition [0036] in order to protect the phosphor and provide an improvement in color shift [0026].
Murphy are Chowdhury analogous art because they both are directed to a light emitting devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Murphy with the specified features of Chowdhury because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Murphy to include phosphor composition as taught by Chowdhury in order to protect the phosphor and provide an improvement in color shift [0026]. Furthermore, in the case where the claimed range of the amount of ingredients "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, differences in amount of phosphor will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are taught in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955).
Murphy as modified by Chowdhury does not explicitly disclose a red blue ratio greater than 4.5, wherein the red blue ratio is a ratio of the integrated power under an emission curve in the red region for resin-encapsulated red phosphor under blue-LED excitation, relative to a power of blue light excitation.
Deram discloses the highest fruit production was obtained using 5:1 ratio of red-to-blue (greater than 4.5 refer to the abstract).
Murphy as modified with Chowdhury and Deram are analogous because they both are directed to a light emitting devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Murphy and Chowdhury with the specified features of Deram because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Murphy and Chowdhury to include LED with red-to-blue ratio as taught by Deram in order to use light emitting diode in fruit production (abstract). Furthermore, since the combined structure discloses of 5:1 which is greater 4.5, the combined structure discloses the red blue ratio is a ratio of the integrated power under an emission curve in the red region for resin-encapsulated red phosphor under blue-LED excitation, relative to a power of blue light excitation, since this is a characteristic property of the LED with the red-to-blue ratio as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Murphy as modified by Chowdhury and Deram disclose the CCT is from about 2500 K to about 3500 K (same device as the claimed invention, hence the same CCT).
Regarding claim 3, Murphy as modified by Chowdhury and Deram does not explicitly disclose the depth dimension is from about 200 microns to about 800 microns.
Parameters such as depth in the art of semiconductor process are subject to routine experimentation and optimization to achieve the desired device characterization during fabrication.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the modified device of Murphy, Chowdhury and Deram as claimed in order to design a light emitting device that is color stable.
Regarding claim 4, Murphy as modified by Chowdhury and Deram disclose wherein the encapsulant material is a thermoset polymer [0041].
Regarding claim 5, Murphy as modified by Chowdhury and Deram disclose the resin is one of a silicone resins [0041].
Regarding claim 6, Murphy as modified by Chowdhury and Deram disclose the blue LED chip and the layer are partially covered by the enclosure (Murphy, figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 7, Murphy as modified by Chowdhury and Deram disclose the encapsulant material forms the enclosure (Murphy, figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 8, Murphy as modified by Deram does not disclose the LED chip and encapsulant are at least partially covered by a lens.
Chowdhury discloses (fig. 2 and related text) an LED chip (52) and encapsulant (54) are at least partially covered by a lens (58) in order to protect the phosphor and provide an improvement in color shift [0026].
Murphy, Deram and Chowdhury are analogous art because they both are directed to a light emitting devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Murphy and Chowdry with the specified features of Chowdhury because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Murphy and Deram to include the lens as taught by Chowdhury in order in order to protect the phosphor and provide an improvement in color shift [0026].
Regarding claim 9, Murphy as modified by Chowdhury and Deram disclose the layer comprising the blend of encapsulant material and phosphor composition is radiationally coupled to the blue LED chip (Murphy, [0041]).
Regarding claim 10, Murphy discloses (figs. 1-2, abstract and related text) a method comprising: receiving phosphor pre-cursor for a phosphor composition comprising a yellow-green phosphor [0002] and a Mn4+ doped complex fluoride phosphor [0017] of formula I, Ax[MFy]: Mn4+ where A is Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, or a combination thereof; M is Si, Ge, Sn, Ti, Zr, Al, Ga, In, Sc, Hf, Y, La, Nb, Ta, Bi, Gd, or a combination thereof; x is the absolute value of the charge of the [MFy] ion; and y is 5, 6, or 7; generating the phosphor pre-cursor for the phosphor composition of formula I having a d50 (median) particle size of from about 1 micrometer to about 10 micrometers [0040]; generating the phosphor composition of formula I from the generated phosphor pre-cursor having the d50 particle size of from about 1 micrometer to about 10 micrometers; constructing an LED lighting apparatus with the generated phosphor composition; and in a case that the constructed LED lighting apparatus is activated, emitting visible light comprising a CCT from about 2500K to about 3700K ([0002], furthermore, since the material as the claimed material will the LED will emit the same CCT light).
Murphy does not explicitly disclose a phosphor loading level of a total phosphor in a combined mass of an encapsulant material and the total phosphor is at or below 50 weight percent in the combined mass of the encapsulant material and the total phosphor in the layer comprising the blend of the encapsulant material and the phosphor composition or a red to blue ratio of greater than 4.5, the red blue ratio is a ratio of the integrated power under an emission curve in the red region for resin-encapsulated red phosphor under blue-LED excitation, relative to a power of blue light excitation.
Chowdhury discloses (fig. 2, table 2, [0036] and related text, including claim 17) a phosphor loading level of a total phosphor in a combined mass of the encapsulant material and the total phosphor is at or below 50 weight percent in the combined mass of the encapsulant material and the total phosphor in the layer comprising the blend of the encapsulant material and the phosphor composition [0036] in order to protect the phosphor and provide an improvement in color shift [0026].
Murphy are Chowdhury analogous art because they both are directed to a light emitting devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Murphy with the specified features of Chowdhury because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Murphy to include phosphor composition as taught by Chowdhury in order in order to protect the phosphor and provide an improvement in color shift [0026]. Furthermore, in the case where the claimed range of the amount of ingredients "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, differences in amount of phosphor will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are taught in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955).
Murphy as modified by Chowdhury does not explicitly disclose a red blue ratio greater than 4.5.
Deram discloses the highest fruit production was obtained using 5:1 ratio of red-to-blue (greater than 4.5 refer to the abstract).
Murphy as modified with Chowdhury and Deram are analogous because they both are directed to a light emitting devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Murphy and Chowdhury with the specified features of Deram because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Murphy and Chowdhury to include LED with red-to-blue ratio as taught by Deram in order to use light emitting diode in fruit production (abstract). Furthermore, since the combined structure discloses of 5:1 which is greater 4.5, the combined structure discloses the red blue ratio is a ratio of the integrated power under an emission curve in the red region for resin-encapsulated red phosphor under blue-LED excitation, relative to a power of blue light excitation, since this is a characteristic property of the LED with the red-to-blue ratio as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Murphy as modified by Chowdhury and Deram disclose providing an enclosure (20) defining a cavity; generating the layer comprising a blend of the encapsulant material (20) and the generated phosphor composition; overlaying the generated layer over the at least one blue light emitting LED chip (12, [0041]) of the LED lighting apparatus (10), wherein the at least one blue light emitting LED chip ([0041], 12) is disposed within the cavity (Murphy, figs 1-2).
Regarding claim 12, Murphy as modified by Chowdry and Deram does not disclose the cavity has a depth dimension is from about 200 microns to about 800 microns.
Parameters such as depth in the art of semiconductor process are subject to routine experimentation and optimization to achieve the desired device characterization during fabrication.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the modified device of Murphy, Chowdry and Deram as claimed in order to design a light emitting device that is color stable.
Regarding claim 13, Murphy as modified by Chowdhury and Deram disclose the layer is radiationally coupled to the at least one blue light emitting LED chip (Murphy, figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 16, Murphy as modified by Chowdhury and Deram disclose the CCT is from about 2500 K to about 3500 K (same process as the claimed invention, hence the same CCT).
Regarding claim 17, Murphy as modified by Chowdhury and Deram disclose the encapsulant material is a thermoset polymer (Murphy, silicone [0041]).
Regarding claim 18, Murphy as modified by Chowdhury and Deram does not explicitly disclose the layer overlaying the at least one blue light emitting LED chip is disposed within the cavity at the depth dimension from about 200 microns to about 800 microns.
Parameters such as the depth of a structure in the art of semiconductor process are subject to routine experimentation and optimization to achieve the desired device characterization during fabrication.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the depth dimension in the structure of Murphy, Chowdhury and Deram as claimed in order to design a light emitting device with stable color.
Regarding claim 19, Murphy discloses (figs. 1-2 and related text also refer to the abstract) an LED lighting apparatus (10) comprising: an enclosure (18) defining a cavity (inside 18) within the enclosure, the cavity comprising a depth dimension (fig. 1) ; at least one blue light emitting LED chip (12, [0041]); a layer comprising a blend of an encapsulant material (20) and phosphor composition (22), the layer overlaying the at least one blue light emitting LED chip (12) and disposed within the cavity (figs. 1-2); the phosphor composition comprising a yellow-green phosphor [0001] and a Mn4+ doped complex fluoride phosphor [0050] of formula I (abstract),
Ax[MFy]: Mn4+ (I)
where A is Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, or a combination thereof; M is Si, Ge, Sn, Ti, Zr, Al, Ga, In, Sc, Hf, Y, La, Nb, Ta, Bi, Gd, or a combination thereof; x is the absolute value of the charge of the [MFy] ion; and y is 5, 6, or 7; wherein the Mn4+ doped complex fluoride phosphor of formula I comprises a d50 (median) particle size of from about 1 micrometers to about 10 micrometers [0040], and the LED lighting apparatus, when activated, emits visible light comprising a correlated color temperature (CCT) of from about 2500 K to about 3700 K ([0002], furthermore, since the material as the claimed material will the LED will emit the same CCT light).
Murphy does not explicitly disclose a phosphor loading level of a total phosphor in a combined mass of the encapsulant material and the total phosphor is at or below 50 weight percent in the combined mass of the encapsulant material and the total phosphor in the layer comprising the blend of the encapsulant material and the phosphor composition or the LED lighting apparatus, when activated emits visible light comprising a red blue ratio greater than 4.5, wherein the red blue ratio is a ratio of the integrated power under an emission curve in the red region for resin-encapsulated red phosphor under blue-LED excitation, relative to a power of blue light excitation.
Chowdhury discloses (fig. 2, table 2, [0036] and related text, including claim 17) a phosphor loading level of a total phosphor in a combined mass of the encapsulant material and the total phosphor is at or below 50 weight percent in the combined mass of the encapsulant material and the total phosphor in the layer comprising the blend of the encapsulant material and the phosphor composition [0036] in order to protect the phosphor and provide an improvement in color shift [0026].
Murphy are Chowdhury analogous art because they both are directed to a light emitting devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Murphy with the specified features of Chowdhury because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Murphy to include phosphor composition as taught by Chowdry in order in order to protect the phosphor and provide an improvement in color shift [0026]. Furthermore, in the case where the claimed range of the amount of ingredients "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, differences in amount of phosphor will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are taught in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955).
Murphy as modified by Chowdhury does not explicitly disclose a light emitting apparatus, when activated emits visible light comprising a red blue ratio greater than 4.5, wherein the red blue ratio is a ratio of the integrated power under an emission curve in the red region for resin-encapsulated red phosphor under blue-LED excitation, relative to a power of blue light excitation.
Deram discloses the highest fruit production was obtained using 5:1 ratio of red-to-blue light emitting diode (greater than 4.5 refer to the abstract).
Murphy as modified with Chowdhury and Deram are analogous because they both are directed to a light emitting devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Murphy and Chowdhury with the specified features of Deram because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Murphy and Chowdhury to include LED with red-to-blue ratio as taught by Deram in order to use light emitting diode in fruit production (abstract). The combined device would result in an apparatus, when activated emitting visible light comprising a red blue ratio greater than 4.5. Furthermore, since the combined structure discloses of 5:1 which is greater 4.5, the combined structure discloses the red blue ratio is a ratio of the integrated power under an emission curve in the red region for resin-encapsulated red phosphor under blue-LED excitation, relative to a power of blue light excitation, since this is a characteristic property of the LED with the red-to-blue ratio as claimed.
Regarding claim 20, Murphy discloses (figs. 1-2 and related text also refer to the abstract) a display device [0048] comprising: an enclosure (18) defining a cavity (inside 18) within the enclosure, the cavity comprising a depth dimension (fig. 1) ; at least one blue light emitting LED chip (12,[0041]); a layer comprising a blend of an encapsulant material (20) and phosphor composition (22), the layer overlaying the at least one blue light emitting LED chip (12,[0041]) and disposed within the cavity (figs. 1-2); the phosphor composition comprising a yellow-green phosphor [0001] and a Mn4+ doped complex fluoride phosphor [0050] of formula I (abstract),
Ax[MFy]: Mn4+ (I)
where A is Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs, or a combination thereof; M is Si, Ge, Sn, Ti, Zr, Al, Ga, In, Sc, Hf, Y, La, Nb, Ta, Bi, Gd, or a combination thereof; x is the absolute value of the charge of the [MFy] ion; and y is 5, 6, or 7; wherein the Mn4+ doped complex fluoride phosphor of formula I comprises a d50 (median) particle size of from about 1 micrometers to about 10 micrometers [0040], and the LED lighting apparatus, when activated, emits visible light comprising a correlated color temperature (CCT) of from about 2500 K to about 3700 K ([0002], furthermore, since the material as the claimed material will the LED will emit the same CCT light).
Murphy does not explicitly disclose a phosphor loading level of a total phosphor in a combined mass of the encapsulant material and the total phosphor is at or below 50 weight percent in the combined mass of the encapsulant material and the total phosphor in the layer comprising the blend of the encapsulant material and the phosphor composition or the display device, when activated, emits visible light comprising a red blue ratio greater than 4.5, wherein the red blue ratio is a ratio of the integrated power under an emission curve in the red region for resin-encapsulated red phosphor under blue-LED excitation, relative to a power of blue light excitation.
Chowdhury discloses (fig. 2, table 2, [0036] and related text, including claim 17) a phosphor loading level of a total phosphor in a combined mass of the encapsulant material and the total phosphor is at or below 50 weight percent in the combined mass of the encapsulant material and the total phosphor in the layer comprising the blend of the encapsulant material and the phosphor composition [0036] in order to protect the phosphor and provide an improvement in color shift [0026].
Murphy are Chowdhury analogous art because they both are directed to a light emitting devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Murphy with the specified features of Chowdhury because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Murphy to include phosphor composition as taught by Chowdhury in order in order to protect the phosphor and provide an improvement in color shift [0026]. Furthermore, in the case where the claimed range of the amount of ingredients "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, differences in amount of phosphor will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are taught in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955).
Deram discloses the highest fruit production was obtained using 5:1 ratio of red-to-blue light emitting diode (greater than 4.5 refer to the abstract).
Murphy as modified with Chowdhury and Deram are analogous because they both are directed to a light emitting devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Murphy and Chowdhury with the specified features of Deram because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Murphy and Chowdhury to include LED with red-to-blue ratio as taught by Deram in order to use light emitting diode in fruit production (abstract). The combined device would result in a display device, when activated emitting visible light comprising a red blue ratio greater than 4.5. Furthermore, since the combined structure discloses of 5:1 which is greater 4.5, the combined structure discloses the red blue ratio is a ratio of the integrated power under an emission curve in the red region for resin-encapsulated red phosphor under blue-LED excitation, relative to a power of blue light excitation, since this is a characteristic property of the LED with the red-to-blue ratio as claimed.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy in view Chowdhury and Deram and in further view of Beers et al., US 2016/0289553.
Regarding claim 14, Murphy as modified by Chowdhury and Deram does not disclose milling the phosphor pre-cursor to the d50 particle size of from about 1 micrometer to about 10 micrometers.
Beers discloses milling the phosphor pre-cursor to the d50 particle size of from about 1 micrometer to about 10 micrometers [0025] in order to make a light emitting devices [0048].
Murphy, Chowdhury, Deram and Beers are analogous art because they both are directed to a light emitting devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Murphy, Chowdhury and Deram with the specified features of Beers because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Murphy, Chowdhury and Deram to include the process of milling the particles as claimed as taught by Beers in order to make a light emitting devices [0048].
Regarding claim 15, Murphy as modified Chowdhury and Deram does not disclose determining the milled phosphor pre-cursor has the d50 particle size of from about 1 micrometer to about 10 micrometers via scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
Beers discloses determining the milled phosphor pre-cursor has the d50 particle size of from about 1 micrometer to about 10 micrometers via scanning electron microscopy (SEM) (fig. 10, Beers).
Murphy, Chowdhury, Deram and Beers are analogous art because they both are directed to a light emitting devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Murphy, Chowdhry and Deram with the specified features of Beers because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Murphy, Chowdhury and Deram to include the process of determining the milled phosphor pre-cursor has the d50 particle size of from about 1 micrometer to about 10 micrometers via scanning electron microscopy (SEM) as taught by Beers in order to make a light emitting devices [0048].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue the cited art cannot be seen to disclose or to suggest at least, "the LED lighting
apparatus, when activated, emits visible light comprising a correlated color temperature (CCT) of from about 2500 K to about 3700 K and a red blue ratio greater than 4.5, wherein the red blue ratio is a ratio of the integrated power under an emission curve in the red region for resin- encapsulated red phosphor under blue-LED excitation, relative to a power of blue light excitation. This not persuasive because, as stated in the first action mailed on 11/19/2025, Murphy clearly discloses, the light emitting apparatus, when activated, emits visible light comprising a correlated color temperature (CCT) of from about 2500 K to about 3700 k [0002]. However, Murphy as modified by Chowdhury does not disclose a red blue ratio greater than 4.5. Deram was only used to teach red blue LED light ratio of greater is not new since Deram clearly teaches red blue ratio of 5:1 which greater than 4.5 (abstract). Since Deram clearly discloses a red blue ratio of greater than 4.5, it follows the combined structure of Murphy, Chowdhury and Deram discloses the red blue ratio is a ratio of the integrated power under an emission curve in the red region for resin-encapsulated red phosphor under blue-LED excitation, relative to a power of blue light excitation, since this is a characteristic property of the LED with the red-to-blue ratio as claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL A GEBREMARIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-1653. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 571-272-1670. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAMUEL A GEBREMARIAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights